Transportation Blog

Is Rick Perry insisting on highway funding anymore?

What a pickle. The House kicked away a good plan to raise new highway money, facing a veto threat from Gov. Rick Perry. The deal-breaker was $15 a year — or $1.25 a month — in higher vehicle registration fees.

I know we should stand by our principles, and “no new taxes” is inscribed on Perry’s forehead. But jeez, a buck-twenty-five a month? It shouldn’t qualify as a stumbling block.

Further, proponents of the failed proposal, HB 3664, pointed out that there has not be a general increase in vehicle registration since 1985, when some members of the Legislature were not even born. You could argue that “no new taxes” goes out the window if you’ve got “past-due taxes.” I’d say the state is overdue in keeping pace with the cost of of basics.

Perry’s opposition to the small stuff made me wonder if he is even insisting anymore that this Legislature find a way to fund transportation before members pack up at the end of the month.

Look at the record. In his address to lawmakers to open the session in January, Perry said this:

“We must deal with infrastructure needs in water, energy and transportation, both for now and stretching into the future.”

“Send me a balanced budget that has no fee increases for transportation and $2 billion for infrastructure for water, and everyone can go home and enjoy their summer.”

He was talking about transportation in terms of what he doesn’t want, not what he wants. Apparently a buck-twenty-five is what he doesn’t want. But nowhere here did he repeat transportation as an imperative that would merit a special-session call if lawmakers failed to deliver.

I called the governor’s office this afternoon for an explanation, and I got this statement from spokesman Josh Havens:

“Gov. Perry has been crystal clear that his priorities this session include significant tax relief, water and transportation infrastructure funding (without fee increases) and a balanced budget. There is still plenty of time left in the session for the legislature to address the governor’s priorities and meet the needs of Texans.”

So Perry says he still wants road funding. Then where to from here?

In debate over HB 3664 yesterday, supporters challenged opponents of higher registration fees to come up with alternatives. Perry’s own transportation director, Phil Wilson, has estimated the shortfall for highways at $4 billion a year.

No one is attacking that number. No one is mentioning more debt schemes to scrape together road money. Tolls go only so far, and metro areas are getting toll weary. Even so, toll projects mean adding to the overall transportation debt.

The motor-fuels tax is a non-starter, because of those words written on Perry’s forehead.

Some opponents of higher registration fees say they like the idea of shifting to the motor-vehicle sales tax as a long-term solution.

Perry, in fact, endorsed using the MVST last month. An amendment to tap a portion of that tax’s future growth was added to HB 3664 by a comfortable margin, 106-30.

So here’s what I don’t get about the governor’s position: The art of governing is the art of compromise. Accepting the $15-a-year fee increase would have been the political cost of migrating transportation costs gradually over to the MVST.

Perry wouldn’t have gotten everything he wanted, but few officials do in a legislative session. Nearly everybody goes home with a half a loaf, or less, then finds a way to call it victory. It’s the art of governing and the art of leadership.

As for Perry’s statement that there’s still time this session, that ignores the Senate’s stance that any revenue measure has to come from the House. And the House is past deadline for reporting out its bills.

There is always Sen. Tommy Williams’ SJR 1, but Speaker Joe Straus called it something like “California governing” and dismissed its chances of coming to a vote.

In any event, SJR 1, by shifting some rainy day money to a new transportation fund, would not provide a long-term, sustainable revenue stream that would grow with road usage and adjust for inflation. Water advocates seem OK with SJR 1 for what it would do for their projects; transportation advocates don’t see it as a long-term fix — more like a one-off.

So yes, there are a few days left in the session, but the list of options has been whacked back to next to nothing. If there’s a good one left, no one mentioned it in the House before too many members deemed $1.25 a month too high a price to pay for modern roads.

Editor Picks

Comments

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.

Ad:TopLeftBlog

Ad: Position1

Archives Title

Archives

ArchivesAbout this blog

About this Blog

Transportation writer Brandon Formby and editorial writer Rodger Jones cover the subject from tollways to traffic, roads to rail. They invite tips and feedback from decision-makers and commuters alike.